Pizza Delivery

[DarkWaters]

My question wasnt an argument, it was a question. You said that you wouldnt give a tip to a worker unless they created enough value for you do so. And then I asked "how do you determine they provided enough value for you to give them a tip?" What dont you understand?

I have no doubts that he understands your arguments.

He said that he uses "the same method for determining the value of service as [he does] for determining any other value." In other words, he uses reason.

If you actually want to know, maybe you should try asking how he uses reason to specifically determine the value (if any) of the service done by a pizza delivery boy. Perhaps it would be more constructive to offer positive values that you perceive a pizza delivery boy has to offer him that go beyond the basic requirements of delivery. That is, how do you think someone can wow Dr. Odden with a pizza delivery to earn a tip?

Edited March 20, 2007 by DarkWaters

[BaseballGenius]

I have no doubts that he understands your arguments.

Its not an argument. Its a question.

He said that he uses "the same method for determining the value of service as [he does] for determining any other value." In other words, he uses reason.

Thats a bit broad. David, maybe you could provide some examples as to what workers would deserve a tip.

[DavidOdden]

David, maybe you could provide some examples as to what workers would deserve a tip.

Me. I think I should be given a nice tip for providing all of this free philosophical analysis.

Here's a concrete example: Antonio something, at that restaurant a couple blocks from State Street Joes. The guy clearly knew his stuff, he knew which was the better fish, good with Italian wines (what do I know about Italian wines? I know what I like, if I like it, after I've ordered it -- a guy with a clue is useful). And we made it back in time for the evening talks. He didn't just transport food from the kitchen: so I got a lot of spiritual value, and he got, well, hopefully reasonable economic value.

In other words, no workers are, because of the oppressive social conditions of their employment, intrinsically deserving of a tip. There are individuals who have deserved a tip because they have provided extraordinary service to me in the ordinary performance of their jobs, people who are redolent of superb ability coupled with action. Please note that I said superb ability, not "technically above average" ability.

[DarkWaters]

Its not an argument. Its a question.

My apologies, I meant to write question.

David, maybe you could provide some examples as to what workers would deserve a tip.

He already provided one here:

I might consider it if I ordered pizza during a monster snowstorm and the guy got there on time, but under those conditions, I probably wouldn't order pizza anyhow.

I imagine that he did not mean that there was anything unique about snowstorms per se. He might also consider tipping a delivery boy if he received his pizza on time during any number of local catastrophes including: a massive flood, a catastrophic mud slide, a devastating earthquake, a deadly ebola epidemic, a blazing conflagration and possibly a violent militant insurgency.

Of course, you know that I do not represent anyone other than myself. If you really wish to be certain, you might want to ask him about whether or not he would tip after receiving a timely delivery amidst any of the aforementioned disasters.

Anyway, your question pertained to the more general category of workers, not just delivermen. That is fine.

[BaseballGenius]

Me. I think I should be given a nice tip for providing all of this free philosophical analysis.

Youre being sarcastic, right? Sure you are helpful on a lot of issues(arrogant and insulting though), but people would go broke trying to have conversations with other people then.

But if you think I should tip you, then I think you should tip me. Without me, you wouldnt be able to gain all that pleasure that you come on here for. Without me and the other people on here trying to learn the philosophy, you would have to find something of less interest to occupy your time.

so I got a lot of spiritual value, and he got, well, hopefully reasonable economic value.

Are you willing to share how much of a tip he received?

[SkyTrooper]

Ok, so I've been thinking this over more..

Hypothetical Parallel Argument:

You go to a foreign, developing country on vacation. This strange culture that you visit has social conventions that when you accept an invitation to someone's house for dinner you are expected to send a gift worth about $10 later. Since it costs about $10 to cook a meal and this culture enjoys entertaining guests the locals often invite people to dinner. You receive several invitations to dinner on your first day there.

Now, would it be immoral to accept all the dinner invitations, eat the free meals, and send none of the requisite gifts? I would argue that if you are aware of the social conventions than you would violate several principles by accepting the meal invites and not sending the gifts.

1) You are being dishonest by accepting an implied contract. If you said "yes I would go to dinner, but will not give you a gift. Do you still want me to come?" than you would not be acting immorally.

2) You are not trading value for value. You are receiving the value of dinner and not returning the value of the gift which is expected (this is ignoring intangibles like pleasurable conversation).

3) You are showing a lack of confidence and pride in yourself, that you think a $10 gift would be so hard for you to work to produce.

Applying this to "tipping the delivery guy"

I come to this conclusion:

If you order a pizza in the US for delivery you have implied, through social convention, that you will tip the driver that delivers it unless you explicitly state otherwise. The only moral action you can take here is to tell the person you order from "please tell the driver I only tip for extraordinary service." This way the driver can at least turn down the delivery and tell the manager that he would rather wash dishes or answer phones. Now if the driver accepts the delivery he is accepting that he will probably not be getting a tip unless he does something above and beyond.

Your other option is to accept the social convention and only not tip if the service is bad. I like this choice because I have pride in my ability to produce, and am therefore not concerned about paying a few more dollars.

If you take a third path and do not tip, without telling the driver in advance that he will not be getting a tip, you are essentially exploiting a poorly defined (implicit) contract. This is a Machiavellian mindset, sacrificing others to yourself because they are "weak" and "irrational" (for entering into an implicit contract) which is the opposite of what self-interest requires.

[DavidOdden]

Youre being sarcastic, right?

As sarcastic as you are being in claiming that you deserve a tip for doing your job. The thing is, if I tipped everybody who felt they deserved a little extra chai / dash / magendo, I'd be broke.

Are you willing to share how much of a tip he received?

If you want a share of his tip, you'll have to take it up with him. I don't really remember how much it was in the realm of 20%.

[DavidOdden]

You go to a foreign, developing country on vacation......

Now, would it be immoral to accept all the dinner invitations, eat the free meals, and send none of the requisite gifts?

This is completely irrelevant. Do I really need to explain this explicitly, especially when I have already made this point at least once before in this thread? Let me help by offering an important generalization: I only accept dinner invitatations from people that I have a personal relationship with, not from anonymous service workers.

Now, if you understand the nature of “friend” versus “serviceman”, and why they are not the same -- essentially, why I do not love all men equally and am very selfish with my affections, not giving it freely to any and all who demand it -- then maybe you can grasp why your “social contract” account of my supposed quasi-legal obligation to tip is bologna and malarky.

It is true, though, that I have had to pay bribes in 4th world countries, especially to government workers. The alternative was that I'd get a lot of inconvenient visits from the police checking up on my paperwork, or I'd suffer loss of my application, or be delayed in departing. So yeah, you do have to spread around a lot of bribe money in the 4th world, more so in some places than others. It might be necessary to tip the pizza delivery boy in Sudan, so that you don't get a poison pizza. The discussion here has been based on the assumption that we're dealing with a civilized nation. If you drop that assumption, bribery is sometimes necessary. I've got a few practical suggestions about how to minimize is, though, centered around the fact that asking for a bribe is actually against the law, even there.

[SkyTrooper]

This is completely irrelevant. Do I really need to explain this explicitly, especially when I have already made this point at least once before in this thread? Let me help by offering an important generalization: I only accept dinner invitatations from people that I have a personal relationship with, not from anonymous service workers.

Now, if you understand the nature of “friend” versus “serviceman”, and why they are not the same -- essentially, why I do not love all men equally and am very selfish with my affections, not giving it freely to any and all who demand it -- then maybe you can grasp why your “social contract” account of my supposed quasi-legal obligation to tip is bologna and malarky.

It is true, though, that I have had to pay bribes in 4th world countries, especially to government workers. The alternative was that I'd get a lot of inconvenient visits from the police checking up on my paperwork, or I'd suffer loss of my application, or be delayed in departing. So yeah, you do have to spread around a lot of bribe money in the 4th world, more so in some places than others. It might be necessary to tip the pizza delivery boy in Sudan, so that you don't get a poison pizza. The discussion here has been based on the assumption that we're dealing with a civilized nation. If you drop that assumption, bribery is sometimes necessary. I've got a few practical suggestions about how to minimize is, though, centered around the fact that asking for a bribe is actually against the law, even there.

In my example I did not mean to imply that these people would be your friends. I was attempting to explain that there is such a thing as an implied contract (especially in the third world) and that if you choose to participate in a transaction where social convention has established an implied contract, than you are still morally (although not legally) required to fulfill it.

I assert (and think that I have supported) that your moral options are to remove the implicit portion of your agreement by stating explicitly when ordering that you do not participate in the common social convention of tipping pizza delivery drivers, to not order pizza for delivery at all, or finding a pizza delivery establishment where tips are not expected.

I am unconvinced by your idea that because the driver has entered into an implied 4th-world-style contract with you that if he chooses to bring you food at a financial loss to himself (since his costs exceed his pay) that its completely on him. As I said before it smacks of Machiavelli, eg. "mmm this is good Pizza, thanks for delivering it you weak irrational sucker, muhahaha!"

[DavidOdden]

I was attempting to explain that there is such a thing as an implied contract (especially in the third world) and that if you choose to participate in a transaction where social convention has established an implied contract, than you are still morally (although not legally) required to fulfill it.

Well, since this isn't a discussion about survival in the third world, it turns out that your suggestion doesn't have any bearing on my relationship to friends vs. service workers. I assert that none of the rest of what you said is true, that I have no obligation to guess at and renounce your social contracts. You want your social contract validated? Get your local legislature to make it the law! We can all take our favorite social contract ideas and demand that they be enforced.

[D'kian]

In my example I did not mean to imply that these people would be your friends. I was attempting to explain that there is such a thing as an implied contract (especially in the third world) and that if you choose to participate in a transaction where social convention has established an implied contract, than you are still morally (although not legally) required to fulfill it.

There are social conventions, customs, in every country. For insatnce, in the West it is customary to bring a small gift when invited to dinner at someone's house. Is it immoral to attend a dinner party empty-handed? No, but it is bad manners, and you probably won't be invited again (whether that's good or bad, is left up to each individual case).

Likewise it is customary to tip some service staff, and it is understood the tip represents an importatnt part of their income. But, like a bottle of wine or flowers at a dinner party, the tip is not in any way a binding contract between the restaurant and the customer. Therefore not tipping is bad manners but not immoral.

Now, in a pot-luck dinner, there's an explicit, if informal, contract that you bring a dish of certain proportions, to be shared among all guests, and that you'll share in what the others bring. In such a case, failure to bring a dish is immoral and bad manners (unless you are invited in too short notice, and even then you ought to decline).

[SkyTrooper]

I assert that none of the rest of what you said is true, that I have no obligation to guess at and renounce your social contracts.

Why? You know that a waitress is getting paid less than minimum wage because it is a social convention that waitresses are paid tips, yet you evade that fact because you don't feel like tipping her.

Then you come up with a ridiculous justification for this sort of behavior based on the fact that you are not legally required to tip anyone, and anything that can't be enforced by our government (which currently has a less than perfect laws, at present.. legal does not equal moral) isn't something you should worry about. "Screw them!" you say, "they were irrational in taking a job where the government couldn't enforce that I give them money!"

Honestly, I would like to be convinced of your position.. it would probably save me money (although people would probably spit in my food a lot.)

Edit: I just saw that from my post it might be possible to read that I advocate legal enforcement of implied agreements: I do not. My position is that it is immoral not to trade value for value (by exploiting an irrational system.)

Edited March 20, 2007 by badkarma556

[Inspector]

/wonders if badkarma has read his post...

[SkyTrooper]

/wonders if badkarma has read his post...

Yikes, which one? This is a long thread..

If you just want to agree to disagree I'll be fine with that. I've throughly convinced myself that I should tip when it is generally understood that tips are expected, so I don't really have a selfish interest in continuing the discussion.

[DarkWaters]

But if you think I should tip you, then I think you should tip me. Without me, you wouldnt be able to gain all that pleasure that you come on here for. Without me and the other people on here trying to learn the philosophy, you would have to find something of less interest to occupy your time.

Before you expect a tip for your services to DavidOdden, you should consider both:

* The scarcity of an individual with an advanced understanding of Objectivism and the willingness to help others increase their understanding.

* The abundance and fungibility of individuals on the internet lacking an advanced understanding of philosophy who are willing to argue on messageboards.

Edited March 21, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Inspector]

Yikes, which one? This is a long thread..

If you just want to agree to disagree I'll be fine with that. I've throughly convinced myself that I should tip when it is generally understood that tips are expected, so I don't really have a selfish interest in continuing the discussion.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141397

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. But you may want to check it out as it directly addresses what you're saying.

[SkyTrooper]

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141397

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. But you may want to check it out as it directly addresses what you're saying.

Ok, thats a good argument, so I'm not as certain as before. My objection is from the principle of only giving value (money) for value (pizza, delivered to my door), and always giving value for value. This is the "balance sheet" as I see it when you have a pizza delivered to you (the numbers are made up, but close).

Owner's Cash Flows_____________________With Tip_________________Without Tip

Cost of Goods Sold/Labor to Make the Pizza________($5)___________________($5)

Customer's Bill________________________________$15___________________$15

"Per Delivery" Payment to the Driver_____________($.50)__________________($.50)

Labor paid to Driver (approximate for 30 mins)____($2.50)_________________($2.50)

Owner's Gain/(Loss)__________________________$7.00___________________$7.00

Customer's Cash Flows

Customer's Bill_____________________________($15)___________________($15)

Tip to Driver________________________________($2)____________________0

Getting Tasty Pizza Delivered to me [intangible]____X_____________________X

Customer's Gain/(Loss)_______________________X-$17_________________X-$15

Driver's Cash Flows

Depreciation on Car for one Delivery___________($1.10)________________($1.10)

Gas for one Delivery________________________($2.00)________________($2.00)

"Per Delivery" Payment to the Driver____________$0.50_________________$0.50

Labor paid to Driver (approximate for 30 mins)____$2.50_________________$2.50

Tip to Driver_________________________________$2____________________0

Driver's Gain/(Loss)__________________________$1.90________________($0.10)

I made the numbers so they worked out this way to make the point better. Obviously a rational person would not take a job that he was effectively working as a slave at, and they certainly wouldn't take a job where they are paying to work there. When he was hired he must have believed that "as long as I do my job well, I will be tipped by the customers and make a profit by providing my labor."

Notice that the owner makes the same amount no matter what. When you don't tip, you gain the value of satisfaction from pizza and the driver looses value. Now you can say if everyone didn't tip the system would go away, etc, etc, but that doesn't answer the question of "Given that tipping the delivery driver is customary in the US, what should I do if I want pizza?"

My answer remains the same now that I can apply it to the larger principle of "it is wrong to benefit from others' irrationality," and I can give plenty of similar examples where this is wrong but I'll start with this:

I just graduated high school and I would like to spend a few years self-educating myself on Chemical Engineering, so I quit my job and go on Welfare so I can live in a nice low-income apartment and study. Why not? My fellow citizens are being irrational by having this program, why shouldn't I take advantage of them?

Edited March 21, 2007 by badkarma556

[SkyTrooper]

The actual situation is thus: the customer has made a deal with the pizza place to have a pizza delivered to his house. The pizza place then employs you to do the delivering. There is no private arrangement between you the delivery man and the customer. There is no value, above and beyond the one stipulated in his purchase contract with the pizza place, that you are providing. This is what is meant by the statement that by expecting a tip, you are asking for the unearned. When the customer pays the price listed on the menu, he has paid for the pizza and the delivery, and furthermore paid for it to be delivered promptly and in a state of quality.

Just to clarify, this is our point of disagreement. I say the nature is thus: the customer has made a deal with the pizza place to have a pizza delivered to his house, and has implied that he will tip the driver (because thats what everyone else does and you haven't said otherwise.) The pizza place employs a driver to do the driving with the understanding that all his profit will be made on tips. The driver has made an irrational decision to accept such a deal, but you are violating the trader principle (and thereby ultimately causing harm to yourself) by taking advantage of the irrational system.

[Inspector]

I made the numbers so they worked out this way to make the point better.

Why did you bother to do so? As a customer, it is not my responsibility to know the balance sheets of a business. No decision I should have to make as a customer can possibly be based on the idea of having such knowledge. As I said, the economic arrangements between the employer and deliveryman are their business - not mine. The only thing I do is agree to buy a pizza, at the price they state on their menu: be that "free delivery" or "delivery: $2.50."

When he was hired he must have believed that "as long as I do my job well, I will be tipped by the customers and make a profit by providing my labor."

Am I responsible for that belief?

When you don't tip, you gain the value of satisfaction from pizza and the driver looses value.

Whose fault is that, though? I submit that it is blaming the victim to say that it is the customer's fault if a driver loses money because he agreed to a deal that loses him money if he does not get tipped, knowing that tips are not a part of the deal.

My answer remains the same now that I can apply it to the larger principle of "it is wrong to benefit from others' irrationality," and I can give plenty of similar examples where this is wrong but I'll start with this:

Whoa, hold your horses there. "It is wrong to benefit from others' irrationality?" Have you ever bought a Japanese car? They are inexpensive because they are subsidized by the Japanese taxpayer. Do you owe a debt to the taxpayers of Japan? Have you ever bought an item that was on clearance? The store owner bought too many and had to lower his prices below cost to get rid of them. You are "benefiting from others' irrationality" in that case as well. Have you ever bought a stock that had just dropped a large amount, but you correctly judge that it will come back up? To buy stock, you have to be buying it from someone; in this case someone who is irrational in selling it. I could name countless other examples.

The best, I think, is a zero percent credit card.

Ever get these in the mail? "Zero percent interest for 12 months," they say. They are based on the idea that many people won't pay them off by the end of the trial period, but if you do then the bank will lose out on the deal. The bank is assuming that most people will act non-rationally, but if you do, then you will be taking advantage of their irrationality. But they are prepared to accept this since they still profit in aggregate because the majority of people with credit cards act non-rationally.

So it is the same with pizza delivery. They price their products based on the assumption of general irrationality (i.e. the tipping custom). Even if you do not participate in the assumption by which they hope to profit from you (i.e. tipping or not paying off your credit card), they don't care because the majority of people will.

A third example, related to the pizza industry, is the coupon. Some coupons are clearly put out there below cost in order to get you to become a regular customer. They may lose out on the coupon deal, but if the "deal" of the coupon causes you to make purchases at the regular price, then they will be ahead on average. If the food is good, then this usually works. But there are some places that I simply don't eat at without a coupon. (they're either too expensive or their food isn't good enough to justify it to me) They most certainly won't be profiting off of me, because my behavior doesn't fit the assumptions that they make about me. Am I responsible for these assumptions?

Absolutely, positively not!

These businesses are adults; not children. I am not responsible for examining their balance sheets, and determining if the deal they are offering me is a losing one for them. If they offer me a deal, then the assumption is that they are mentally competent to offer it, and are responsible for the consequences of the contract they enter. Just as I am responsible for the contracts that I enter.

What about if the majority of people start to act like me? Then businesses will have to stop making deals of this kind. To which I say, "good."

I just graduated high school and I would like to spend a few years self-educating myself on Chemical Engineering, so I quit my job and go on Welfare so I can live in a nice low-income apartment and study. Why not? My fellow citizens are being irrational by having this program, why shouldn't I take advantage of them?

Do you seriously mean to imply that welfare is a voluntary system that taxpayers consent to participate in?!? Because the last time I checked, there is a massive difference between a private business where anyone who doesn't like it is free to quit, and a government which acts by force!

Edited March 21, 2007 by Inspector

[Inspector]

Just to clarify, this is our point of disagreement. I say the nature is thus: the customer has made a deal with the pizza place to have a pizza delivered to his house, and has implied that he will tip the driver (because thats what everyone else does and you haven't said otherwise.)

(bold mine)

No, and I can't emphasize this enough, he has not. This is an assumption - an incorrect assumption - on the part of the business and/or driver. That a lot of other people do something does not make it binding, either legally or morally, on anyone. The fact that I have no way of knowing (or obligation to know) what other actions, such as lower pay, they have based on this assumption only emphasizes this point.

What you are talking about is etiquette, i.e. "the customs that most people follow in a social setting." It may be considered "rude" to not tip. But basing a business on etiquette is not good business. To participate in the "tip people who don't do anything beyond their job" system, against my better judgment, because someone else has made a poor decision, would mean that I am responsible for protecting all businessmen from their poor decisions.

That is total hogwash and a violation of justice.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Inspector

[FeatherFall]

David, I don't expect you to tip based on wage statute. I was offering wage statute as one way of identifying tip-services because people don't post signs, and you seem to have more difficulty identifying appropriate tipping situations than other people. I explained earlier the justification for why you owe your participation and what that participation requires. What has been bugging me is that the more I examine this thread, the more I believe that we agree on the essentials.

"Do I or don't I owe a tip when dealing with the service industry?" is not a legitimate question. It is my assertion that if you are ordering from a place where you believe that tips are expected, what you owe is a serious evaluation of the services rendered. After the evaluation, you come to a conclusion about how much more is owed. You must act on what you have concluded to be moral. Am I correct that you agree with this paragraph?

Each party will come to their own conclusion about whether the other is fulfilling their end of the bargain. If a customer is not giving serious consideration, or has but did not tip accordingly, then the customer is being rude. If the delivery person presents unrealistic expectations about what their service is worth, then they are being naive or second-handed. The service person should understand that the onus is on him to convince the customer of his worth.

Previous posts on this thread reek of the assumption that someone is either undervaluing or overvaluing the pizza guy. I think this all stems from the fact that we were trying to answer the question, "Do customers owe the pizza guy a tip?" Again, this is not a legitimate question because it is requires a context to be answered - a specific customer, pizza guy and order. Skepticism about each other side's history with the service industry has only served to cloud the issue further.

I don't expect to post much more on the issue. Best wishes on encountering a superlative pizza guy.

Edited March 21, 2007 by FeatherFall

[SkyTrooper]

Why did you bother to do so? As a customer, it is not my responsibility to know the balance sheets of a business. No decision I should have to make as a customer can possibly be based on the idea of having such knowledge. As I said, the economic arrangements between the employer and deliveryman are their business - not mine.

Reducto ad Absurdum:

You are a clothing manufacturer in 1820. You purchase your materials (cotton) from a southern plantation which employs slave labor. Is this action immoral. "No" you say "this is not immoral because my agreement is between the Owner and me, not between me and the workers. It is not my responsibility to determine if slave labor is employed by my supplier. I cannot reasonably be expected to know what system is involved to produce the product."

Clearly, in this example, you are wrong. Why?

Because you do not have a right to enter into a contract with an employer that is: "I will give you money for cotton. I know you will enslave individuals to produce the cotton, but I will evade or ignore that fact."

"I say the nature is thus: the customer has made a deal with the pizza place to have a pizza delivered to his house, and has implied that he will tip the driver because thats what everyone else does and you haven't said otherwise.(bold mine)"

No, and I can't emphasize this enough, he has not. This is an assumption - an incorrect assumption - on the part of the business and/or driver. That a lot of other people do something does not make it binding, either legally or morally, on anyone. The fact that I have no way of knowing (or obligation to know) what other actions, such as lower pay, they have based on this assumption only emphasizes this point.

This is clearly not legally binding or enforceable. I continue to disagree with you here, and it is obviously the key issue. You are aware that the driver makes his profit on tips (this would be an even clearer discussion if we were discussing waitresses). That the company will provide the pizza and you will tip the driver if the service is not bad is the implicit agreement between you and the company. If you doubt this, call up a pizza delivery company and ask "am I expected to tip the driver?" I'm willing to bet the most managers will tell you "the driver makes most of his money off of tips, so you should tip unless you are not satisfied with the service."

Example of why you should not take advantage of an implicit agreement:

A Marxist comes up to you and says "People must help each other. If a person helps someone now, he must return the favor later." After debating "surplus capital" or other such nonsense with you for a while, he gives you a briefcase with $1,000 in it and says "here comrade you are down on your luck and need this now." Do you take the briefcase?

I would not, because I know that the man believes that I will give it back to him later, and I have not explicitly agreed to do so. Explicitly this $1,000 is a gift but implicitly it is a loan. Yes he is being irrational to enter into an implicit agreement of this kind, and it is not legally binding. No I cannot simply evade the my knowledge of his belief because it is convenient or "no one can reasonably expect me to know and I can feign ignorance of the agreement later."

My Conclusion

The nature of your agreement with the Pizza Company Owner is this: the customer has made an explicit deal with the pizza place to have a pizza delivered to his house, and has made an implicit deal with the pizza company that he will tip the driver. In the US, where millions of these deals go on every day under these terms, it can be assumed that the customer knows this. If the customer does not clarify the agreement explicitly by telling the company that he will not be tipping the driver (as custom dictates) he is not merely being rude, but unethical.

Edited March 21, 2007 by badkarma556

[Inspector]

Reducto ad Absurdum:

You are a clothing manufacturer in 1820. You purchase your materials (cotton) from a southern plantation which employs slave labor. Is this action immoral. "No" you say "this is not immoral because my agreement is between the Owner and me, not between me and the workers. It is not my responsibility to determine if slave labor is employed by my supplier. I cannot reasonably be expected to know what system is involved to produce the product."

Slavery does not equal a person stupidly* entering into a bad business arrangement. Totally non-comparable so I must reject your example outright.

We're talking about doing business with people who choose to operate at a loss because they incorrectly think you'll do something at a later date that isn't part of the deal. I gave several examples of this and you have answered zero of them.

Because you do not have a right to enter into a contract with an employer that is: "I will give you money for cotton. I know you will enslave individuals to produce the cotton, but I will evade or ignore that fact."

You mean "it would not be ethical," not "you do not have a right." But as I said slavery doesn't have anything to do with this.

That the company will provide the pizza and you will tip the driver if the service is not bad is the implicit agreement between you and the company.

I am in an agreement with the company to tip their driver? No. A lot of people deciding to simultaneously do something does not have a binding effect on myself. Nor do I have an obligation to correct the foolish ideas of everyone I do business with. I gave several examples of this.

If you doubt this, call up a pizza delivery company and ask "am I expected to tip the driver?"

So what if they expect it? Lots of people expect the return of the Lord Jesus Stinking Christ On A Bloody Crutch. Does that mean I have to play along with that, too?

A Marxist comes up to you and says "People must help each other. If a person helps someone now, he must return the favor later." ... he gives you a briefcase with $1,000 in it and says "here comrade you are down on your luck and need this now." Do you take the briefcase?

Totally not comparable. I have an actual, explicit, arrangement with the pizza place to purchase a pizza for $14. I have no arrangement whatsoever with the Marxist.

The nature of your agreement with the Pizza Company Owner is this: the customer has made an explicit deal with the pizza place to have a pizza delivered to his house, and has made an implicit deal with the pizza company that he will tip the driver. In the US, where millions of these deals go on every day under these terms, it can be assumed that the customer knows this. If the customer does not clarify the agreement explicitly by telling the company that he will not be tipping the driver (as custom dictates) he is not merely being rude, but unethical.

No, here's the situation: the menu at the pizza place says they will sell me a pizza for "$12 plus $2 for delivery." That's what is explicitly written on their menu. I expect one pizza, delivered and in good condition for $14. The price on the menu for delivery is the price on the menu for delivery.

More money at this point isn't simply an implicit arrangement; it is an implicit arrangement that directly contradicts the explicit arrangement!

Finally, this needs to be said: A fee is a fee and a tip is for when someone does something completely amazing. So let's not mince words: this isn't an implicit arrangement for a tip, it's an implicit fee. An implicit fee for something I have already explicitly paid for and therefore have a right to.

That's called a bribe in most places.

*or, not so stupidly. Lots of people in "tipping" jobs make, as the kids say, bank.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Inspector

[Moebius]

Because you do not have a right to enter into a contract with an employer that is: "I will give you money for cotton. I know you will enslave individuals to produce the cotton, but I will evade or ignore that fact."

You're clearly missing the fact that a pizza delivery man entered into his service contract with the employer of his own will.

[RationalBiker]

My Conclusion

The nature of your agreement with the Pizza Company Owner is this: the customer has made an explicit deal with the pizza place to have a pizza delivered to his house, and has made an implicit deal with the pizza company that he will tip the driver. In the US, where millions of these deals go on every day under these terms, it can be assumed that the customer knows this. If the customer does not clarify the agreement explicitly by telling the company that he will not be tipping the driver (as custom dictates) he is not merely being rude, but unethical.

It doesn't matter what you personal conclusion is until you establish an objective basis on why some folks "deserve" tips and others do not. Following social convention is not enough. Failing to follow customs merely because they are customs is not unethical. It's immaterial from an objective standpoint whether or not most people choose to tip.

And no, he has not made an implicit agreement with the company or driver that he will tip. It is equally "known" by pizza drivers and companies that some people do not tip, therefore they CHOOSE to either continue their delivery service or not based on it's profitablility, something which is not my responsibility. It is not "slavery" as you mentioned earlier because they (the company and the driver) have a choice to continue or not continue based on the (tip) variance in the market.

What objective criteria exists that determines who should get a tip and who shouldn't?

[Edit: Change in 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence from "is insufficient" - RB]

Edited March 21, 2007 by RationalBiker